After election day, media outlets reported on persons described by various sources as possible appointments to senior positions in the incoming Trump presidency.[1] Until the Trump Administration announces its official cabinet, this page will continue to be updated with new information and potential positions.

Analysis

Due to Trump's lack of government experience and fluid political positions, much interest existed among the media over his cabinet nominations, as they are believed to show how Trump plans to govern.

Certain news organizations, such as Politico and Newsweek, called Trump's incomplete cabinet a "conservative dream team"[2] or "the most conservative cabinet [in United States history]."[3] On the other hand, The Wall Street Journal stated that "it's nearly impossible to identify a clear ideological bent in the incoming president's" cabinet nominations.[4]The Wall Street Journal also stated that Trump's nominations signaled a pro-deregulation administration policy.[5]

On 18 January, two days before Trump's inauguration, it was reported that he had by then nominated only 28 people to fill 690 positions requiring Senate confirmation.[9] In particular, there had been no nominations below the Cabinet level for the departments of State or Defense, and the staff for the National Security Council was incomplete, while none of the NSC leadership had any NSC experience.[10] It was also reported that hundreds of briefing papers had been created by Obama's NSC and sent to Team Trump, but no one knew if they had been reviewed.[11]

On February 28, 2017, Trump announced he did not intend on filling many of the numerous governmental positions that were still vacant, as he considered them unnecessary.[12] According to CNN on February 25, nearly 2,000 vacant governmental positions existed.[13]

Announced high-level positions

Appointees awaiting Senate confirmation are marked in beige. Confirmed appointees are marked in green. Former appointees are marked in grey. Appointees serving without Senate confirmation have a white background.

Possible candidates for other high-level positions

There are currently two vacancies on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, formerly held by Sarah Bloom Raskin and Jeremy C. Stein, to which Trump will be able to name appointees. All sitting members were appointed by Barack Obama. The current Fed Chair has a term which expires in early 2018, as does the primary Vice Chair, at which point Trump will be able to replace the holders of both of those roles. (Trump complained about Yellen in particular and the Fed in general during his campaign, but after his election has signalled that he would not push for an early resignation prior to that expiration.[198]) In addition to the primary Vice Chair role, there is also a new (Dodd-Frank) regulatory Vice Chair Of Supervision role,[199] currently unfilled officially (albeit unofficially being held by Daniel Tarullo). It is expected that Trump will fill the two vacant seats, and then name one of those new appointees as Vice Chair of Supervision, during 2017. (He may additionally opt to replace the primary Vice Chair, and/or the Fed Chair, when their terms expire in 2018.) The following names have been mentioned as potential appointees to the board, which is a prerequisite of taking either of the vice chair roles (or the role of the chair). See also, the FOMC membership, which is a superset of the FRB membership discussed here.[200][201][202][203] Although it is considered unlikely given the quasi-independent nature of the Fed, there is a possibility that the composition of the group itself (size and term-lengths and membership) could be directly altered by the Republican-controlled legislative and executive branches during the 2017–2019 session (see Federal Reserve Act), should the five sitting Obama-appointees come into serious conflict with the economic agenda of lawmakers (for instance in 1948 Marriner S. Eccles was replaced as chair by Thomas B. McCabe).[204] During the 2016 campaign, candidates from both parties criticized the Fed's nominal independence from both politics and profit, albeit on different grounds: among other critics, Trump accused it of making economic decisions with an eye to influencing elections, and Clinton wanted to keep members of the banking industry from serving.[205]

Appointees to all the roles under discussion here (board members, vice chairs, and fed chair) must undergo hearings before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on the way to being confirmed by a vote of the full Senate.

Relative pace of Cabinet formation and Congressional approval

While President Trump tweeted on February 7, 2017, dissatisfaction -- "It is a disgrace my Cabinet is not yet in place, the longest such delay in the history of our country"—the assertion was ruled false by the BBC based on a detailed review of the last five administrations. The analysis found more room for a general complaint of slowness in Congressional action and that the administration "has by far the fewest confirmed cabinet selections at this point" but it also noted that, beyond the non-action on Judge Merrick Garland's 10-month nomination to the Supreme Court by Trump's predecessor, President Obama's "choice for Labor secretary, Thomas Perez, took 121 days to be confirmed. John Bryson, his commerce pick, waited 126 days. Attorney General Loretta Lynch holds the modern record, as 161 days passed before getting Senate approval."[271]

Notes

↑McMaster assumed the office of National Security Advisor without Senate confirmation. However, because he was a Lieutenant General in the Army on active duty when he was appointed, he required Senate confirmation in order to continue serving in grade on active duty while he held the position of National Security Advisor. He was confirmed by the Senate (86–10), but even without Senate confirmation, he could have continued as National Security Advisor, although he would have had to retire from the Army.